I have been reading the exchange of comments regarding Charrow's article, and I think Bill's is the most balanced and the most helpful to me as a high school English teacher. Thanks "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I think it may be important to separate two different kinds of "grammar error" for purposes of this discussion. The first is the traditional array of problems with subject/verb agreement, intransitive vs. transitive verb use, parallel structure, etc. The second is what many handbooks might classify as "diction problems": homonym errors, use of the wrong preposition with a verb, confusing "every day" with "everyday," or just what I've started calling "sideways writing," as when a student wanting to say something like, "Lincoln emancipated the slaves" instead writes, "Lincoln put freedom onto the slaves." I suspect -- without objective evidence, unfortunately -- that the frequency of the first type of error, by whatever definitions of standard grammar are in force at any given time, has held roughly steady for the past two or three hundred years (it doesn't make much sense to talk about mistakes prior to a period in which the majority of people didn't think about language in ways heavily affected by notions of standardization). Those of us who teach college may see more of it, but only as a function of (a) a greater percentage of students going on to college, and (b) this increase in students entailing availability of college to more speakers of nonstandard dialects, who previously were often denied access to it. Professors who might never before have seen "might could" or "fixing to" in print now have the opportunity to do so. I would guess that if we sampled ninth-grade writing across K-12 systems every ten years for the past hundred years or so, we'd see much less change. I confess, however, that it is my (again, subjective) impression that I'm seeing a lot more of the *second* kind of problem. I had at least seven students this semester regularly confuse "sole" with "soul," with some rather amusing consequences. From a linguistic perspective, that kind of confusion is simply incidental to our spelling system's baroque oddity -- it's just evidence that students are not only hooked on phonics, but that they have trouble breaking the cycle of addiction. It's a very *noticeable* kind of mistake, though, and can easily lead to very negative judgments about the writer -- and unfair though those may be, the writer *will* bear the brunt of them. It's this kind of problem that I think is related to a decrease in reading and the lack of school experiences that encourage students to think actively about how they're using their language. Whether any of this was considered, or would be considered, relevant by Charrow I have no idea; she may prefer to live in a far simpler world. From her article, I can't help but suspect that her goal was primarily to establish her political position for purposes of her "employment with the federal government." But then, I'm cynical. Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/